Re: [ARSCLIST] discography of "direct-to-disk revival"?

[steven c <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "phillip holmes" <insuranceman@xxxxxxxxxx>

> Oh come on!  Do I have to put a smiley face after something when I'm 
> being a smarty pants?  But seriously, long after the cockroaches have 
> taken over, I figure some 78s will still be playable.
Well, I have 78's pressed over a century ago, which still sound as good
as they ever did! I have no idea if shellac has an inherent lifespan
(if not dropped or immersed in water for any length of time)...but
these appear to be in the same condition as they were when their previous
owners set them aside!
> Not so with CDs.  
> Sony did promise "perfect sound forever" when they foisted an imperfect 
> format on us.  I do like SACD and DVD-A.  They sound great but are dead 
> formats.  I can hear all kinds of problems with CD compared to SACD and 
> good vinyl.
Are the problems due to the format...or due to poor (re-)engineering?
Are there any inherent limitations in the accuracy of a CD...and, if
so, are these due to the digital nature of its content, or technical
limitations of the digital discs?

> CD wasn't perfect and it doesn't last forever.  Also, I 
> compared Blue Note 78 of T. Monk to the 10" LP version, and the 78 blew 
> the LP away.  There are obvious reasons if you get past your initial 
> shock.  The 78 was at it's maturity and LP was new.  You were running 
> more than twice as fast with 78 and it was probably much easier to 
> master 78 than LP.  So 78 can sound very good.
Apparently, it is a technical "given" that, for an analog disc recording
the fidelity increases as the speed increases. I have a c.1968 RCA(C) test
record (or promo record) which was cut at 78rpm...in STEREO! According to
notes on its sleeve, there was a second similar disc in the set...on which
one side was quadraphonic! The inherent sonic problem with 78's is the
noise due to the rough filler content in the compound from which they
were made...in fact, "low noise" vinyl pressings were used for some
radio promos from c.1946 onward. I have no particular idea what might
cause the lower (but still audible) surface noise on vinyl analog discs?

>  Also, I'd imagine that 
> what was going to the cutting head was somewhat limited compared to what 
> is available with modern microphones and consoles.
> 
Prior to the late forties, and the introduction of the Decca(UK)
"ffrr" wide-range recording system (a side result of research in
SONAR imaging) there were definite limits to the accuracy of the
recorded signal. Thereafter, whatever inaccuracies existed were
probably outside the bandwidth of human hearing. However, the 44.1
standard would by definition limit the upper frequency recordable
on a CD (I'm not exactly sure of how this works). Our ears also
create limits...I'm sure Ecru (my cat) might notice missing
high-frequency information, but after a series of head injuries
my personal bandwidth and frequency response are well below any
standards!

Steven C. Barr